In such a tool, the tool part comprises a projecting, rotatable shaft on whose end opposite the body a pin forming the functional element extends through an aperture out of the shaft that can be oscillated in its longitudinal direction in order to remove material of the bone, the shaft being coupled with the drive shaft such that the latter exerts a torque onto the shaft and the pin at least indirectly, and at least one wing projecting radially from the shaft that extends at a spacing beginning behind the pin in the peripheral direction of the shaft helically in the direction of the body.
To anchor dental implants in a mandible, it is necessary to provide a bore that receives the implant or an implant body holding it. Various variants of dental implants are known from the prior art. In particular, a tool of the cited type is known from German patent application DE 10 2006 057 019. However, implants in bone are necessary in surgical areas besides oral surgery.
One variant of these implants has an anchor body consisting of a massive cylindrical middle part and at least one wing projecting radially from it and extending like a screwthread around the periphery of the middle part. Two or even more such wings are also possible, the pitch of the respective wings then being substantially steeper than when only a single wing is present. The implantation of such an anchor body in the bone can be done in various ways. Something that these implantation types have in common is that a bore must first be made in the bone that receives at least the cylindrical middle part.
According to one variant, for example, the diameter of the bore can be equal to the outer diameter of the middle part, the wing or wings of the implant body then being self-cutting and the implant body being twisted into the bone like a screw, the wings cutting into the bone like the threads of a screw. However, this is only possible under the exertion of very high force or torque. In the case of a dental implant, such a screwing-in of the implant body is extremely unpleasant for the patient.
One alternative consists in designing the bore to be so large that its diameter corresponds to the overall diameter of the implant body, i.e. including the radial width of the wind. In this case, the implant body is merely pushed into the bore without the wings cutting into the bone. One drawback of this variant, however, is that a lot of bone material has to be removed and it takes a very long time until the bone material has osseointegrated to the implant body. The healing process is therefore disproportionately long.
According to a third variant, it is of course also possible to select the diameter of the bore such that it is somewhat smaller than the overall diameter of the implant body, the wing or wings does or do cut into the bone upon insertion of the implant body, but the penetration depth of the wing or wings is only minimal, for example 0.5 to 1 mm. Although the implant body is already seated firmly in the bone in this variant upon insertion, the healing process remains long, since a large volume must again be filled out with growing bone material.